Central Asia has recently been in the focus of public attention due to the political turbulences in Kazakhstan in January this year. The developments in Kazakhstan remind how critical it is for the political regimes in Central Asia to develop political openness and promote good governance. This exchange brings together four experts to discuss the salient issues related to good governance in Central Asia and the role played by Hanns Seidel Foundation in promoting reforms in the region:
Dr Shairbek Dzhuraev, Moderator: Dr Meier, you have worked for Hanns Seidel Foundation (HSF) for 19 years, covering Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, focusing on promoting good governance and administration. Can you tell us about the most significant changes that you have observed in politics and society in this region since you first arrived?
Dr Meier: First of all, there is a new generation of politicians and bureaucrats. Especially the representatives of public administration I met around 20 years ago were much more “soviet style”-educated and -minded. But still, for my understanding, state institutions are weaker today than 20 years ago, due to high fluctuation in the expert staff, permanent political interventions and also the neglection of qualification criteria in appointments. A much bigger part of the Central Asian countries' populations today speak their native languages. Kyrgyzstan has been, for some time now, an “island of democracy” in the region, albeit with some deficits. Uzbekistan nowadays has become more liberal and open than under the regime of former President Karimov. China has emerged as the economic superpower in Central Asia, Russia is no more an opponent in this respect. Russia is keeping its political influence in Central Asia, especially by opening the door for millions of labour migrants from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Ethnic Russians in Central Asia nowadays emigrate to Russia only in limited numbers every year, not comparable to the huge emigration flows after independence in 1991. It is also remarkable that recently the re-elected Uzbek President Mirziyoyev for the first time called for an intensified cooperation among Central Asian countries.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: We all remember that in the past two years, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan have gone through major political turbulences. Dr Meier, if we just follow up on your answer, I wonder what do the events in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan tell us about the nature of political systems and processes in the region?
Dr Meier: What we see in Central Asia, for me, is a natural process in the post-Soviet region. The former Soviet Union left behind institutions that do not serve the people but were created by political regimes as a tool against the people. Post-Soviet leaders continued to use them until people couldn't bear it anymore. In more open societies like Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, these protests happened earlier. In more closed societies like Belarus and Kazakhstan, they happened a little bit later. Kazakhstan is currently facing a bifurcation of different options. It could go deeper into an authoritarian regime or try a more open system for society. In Ukraine, we saw a greater clarity of the system, but also greater unpredictability, as well as many unresolved problems. And now it ended up in a human tragedy initiated by the Russian aggression bringing war over Ukraine. People in Central Asia desire real political change. In Kazakhstan, for example, by now, almost two generations of Kazakhs know that their country is dominated by only one politician, (former) President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has been given also the title “Leader of the Nation”.
Another aspect is the lack of good governance. Again, the case of Kazakhstan, as an example: Even 30 years after independence, the country cannot fight effectively widespread corruption. And despite numerous state anti-corruption measures, Kazakhstan ranks only 94th place out of 179 participating countries on the Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index in 2020.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: While we are discussing Kazakhstan, I would like to turn to our colleagues who are based in Kazakhstan.
Dr. Niyazbekov, I wonder, the recent developments in Kazakhstan have revealed a great deal of frustration across the Kazakhstani society. What do the events tell us about the state of governance and politics in Kazakhstan?
Dr Nurseit Niyazbekov: Indeed, the events in general have highlighted a major gap in the revenues of the common people, and have also revealed the problems in governance standards, as my colleague just noted. On top of that, the people are upset by the way that the government treats the protesters, the human rights activists, the journalists, the political party members. All of these have been on the radar of the government for ages and especially in the past decade.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: Mr Ermanganbetuly, another view from Kazakhstan: What do you think should be the biggest priorities for national leaders and local governments to improve the interaction between citizens and the state?
Mr Ermanganbetuly: The new government (note by the editor: as a result of the protests in January, President Tokayev had dismissed the previous government) will have to carry out further reforms to strengthen the statehood and develop Kazakh democracy. It is about the creation of a new type of government that has to meet the tasks of serving the society and strengthening the state. It is about decentralizing power and dividing responsibilities between the political center and the regions. The only way to modernize our country and to make it competitive is to progressively follow the path of political liberalization. Civil society in Kazakhstan is being developed and independent media outlets work in the country. There are over 21,000 non-governmental organizations of various orientations. Citizens should be directly involved into the process of political decision making and implementation, and local level issues should be resolved by local authorities.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: These points really add up to what Dr Niyazbekov has mentioned about the social and economic roots of the situation.
We will turn to Kyrgyzstan: As we remember, in the past two years, Kyrgyzstan has also seen its share of major political events, starting from political protests in 2020, leading to political transition, constitutional changes and the change of the form of government.
Mrs Zheenbekova, I wonder, in the context of the events in Kyrgyzstan in the past two years, what do you think are the most critical issues for Kyrgyzstan to finally achieve political stability and development for the forthcoming years?
Mrs Zheenbekova: I haven’t noticed any cardinal changes since October 2020 in my country. I want to emphasize that my answer is my personal opinion. But I can say that Kyrgyzstan is on the path of development. There are many changes in the structure of public administration. Local and international observers noted that the November 2021 elections (note by the editor: repeated election after 2020, where the election commission had responded to the protests by declaring the results invalid) were held without major deficits. Kyrgyzstan has faced revolutions three times after gaining independence. These were the results of the demands and requirements of the people. People are now a little bit tired of political changes without concrete improvements for their daily lives. The people's expectations are that the state will secure political freedom, guarantee the adoption of laws, the creation of favorable conditions for farmers and entrepreneurs and the optimization of the management system in general.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: The discussion of events in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan remind us how severe the challenges are and remain.
Coming back to Hanns Seidel Foundation: Dr Meier, the HSF has been operating for many years in Central Asia. I wonder whether you could very briefly speak about the activities that you would like to highlight most?
Dr Meier: Within the framework of the concept of good governance of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Representation Office of the HSF in Central Asia has been working to promote public and municipal administration sectors since 2002. In particular, that includes strengthening institutions like National Academies for Public Administration in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhzstan and Uzbekistan. It includes the provision of qualified human resources for this sector by means of training, retraining and consulting services for young leaders from public and municipal administration, as well as for elected municipal representatives, coming to a total of 3,500 graduates of HSF programs in the region during 19 years. There are also long-term efforts to contribute to the functional and territorial administrative reform in selected project countries. It's about the development of local self-government, about the active participation of the citizens. And it's also about the commitment to administrative transparency.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: You have made an emphasis on working with the youth, and I think it is really important. A very quick follow up on this: As part of the fellowship program of HSF, you work with young leaders from public and municipal administrations. What can you tell us about aspirations and attitudes of young people concerning their countries?
Dr Meier: In Central Asia, around half of the population is under 30 years, so in average there are quite young populations. Central Asian states inherited widespread literacy and relatively high educational standards from the USSR. But today, education systems are in serious financial crisis. Teachers are underpaid, schools lack basic facilities. Corruption has devaluated qualification standards. And economic pressure means that families are better off allowing children to work than to attend schools. In some areas of Tajikistan, secondary school attendance has dropped from nearly 100% to below 50%. Young girls are increasingly likely to receive little education. So, many young people with limited schooling end up in casual labour or subsistence agriculture. Work is also hard to find for the educated. So it is not surprising that young people increasingly seek solutions outside mainstream society. It's through alternative options of religion, violence, extremism or the widespread migration. Two thirds of young people say they want to leave the region, mostly to Russia and Kazakhstan.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: It sounds like there's much work still to be done. Independent Central Asian states turned 30 last year. If we look at the next 30 years – could each of you name a few factors that you consider as the most critical drivers of positive change and development of either Central Asia in general or a particular country?
Mr Ermanganbetuly: There are many problems on the way of development of the Central Asian countries. Among the main ones I would highlight clan struggle for power, corruption, the complexity of the socioeconomic situation, growing poverty, a lack of jobs, injustice created by the authorities. Also, the pandemic has caused enormous damage to the countries of the region. In the near future, the authorities of the Central Asian countries must also concentrate on solving the urgent environmental issues. I also want to highlight the problems in the education sector: Poorly educated youth is easily open for propaganda and participation in ethnic conflicts, in particularly in border areas.
The latest economic sanctions against Russia will certainly affect also the economy of Central Asia. As a result, new serious challenges to security, economic and political relations will raise. The leaders and the governments of the countries of Central Asia should give priority to all these problems and intensify regional and international cooperation.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: Ms Zheenbekova: What would be your take on what are the factors that can drive positive change in Kyrgyzstan or in Central Asia in the coming years?
Mrs Zheenbekova: As it was in the past, also today, the post-Soviet states depend often on the great powers who put pressure on them and request, for example, military bases in return for financial support. However, if the Central Asian states will not only follow the supremacy of the great powers and will instead be able to regulate their border issues, political and economic relations in Central Asian states will progress. Although large-scale inter-state conflicts have not occurred for the last 30 years in Central Asia, bilateral conflicts have taken place on border issues. Under these conditions, the guidelines for political and economic development of Central Asian states should not only be described theoretically in cooperation agreements like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), but fulfilled with life to create real concrete results for better living conditions for the people.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: Dr Niyazbekov, as a political scientist, but also as a keen observer of developments in the region. What would be your view on the factors that may drive positive change in our region?
Dr Niyazbekov: I agree with Markulan Ermanganbetuly and Erkina Zheenbekova in regards to the priorities that policymakers need to set. But I would like to add a rather pessimistic outlook: We have to face the fact that all of the five republics (note by the editor: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) are very well consolidated authoritarian regimes. The crisis of democracy that the world has been observing in the last decades will not do much benefit to the regional democratisation. So I want to be a bit more realistic: For Central Asia, I would prescribe further modernisation, further sustainable development, educational reforms, local capacity building projects, civil society projects that have to be invested in more thoroughly by the democracy promoting agencies. That's what should be the recipe for the Central Asian development, in my opinion.
Speaking for Kazakhstan, I think that currently the number one thing on the agenda is political liberalisation. Political liberalisation on top of improving the socio-economic standards of living in the society. So as I mentioned earlier, the demand is really high. The pressure is really critical at the moment. Tokayev’s administration is now trying to do whatever it can in order to improve the social welfare. But that alone would not be enough because the civil society – although it's still very small and is focused mainly in the big cities, nevertheless it is there – demands for political decentralization, police reforms and then electoral reforms, constitutional reforms. These things should not remain on the paper and the government will have to open up a little bit more in order to cater for such demands. And last but not least: The events in Ukraine, I think they will exacerbate the existing pressures on the Kazakh government, on the Central Asian governments in regards to reformulating, revisiting, reformatting their foreign policy priorities. There is the growing Chinese influence in the region and the Sinophobia, add to it the Russophobia, which will only make things even more dramatic in the years to come.
Dr Dzhuraev, Moderator: Dr Meier, if you have just a couple of “bullet points” on what do you see as drivers of positive change in the forthcoming years?
Dr Meier: Coming to the end, more questions could be raised than answers provided. As such, the geopolitics of Central Asia with Islam, the strong economic influence of China, the historical presence of Russia, the existence of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and also the Western soft power suggests that a specific model for development remains in this part of the world. The question that emerged is therefore to know how and if the countries of Central Asia can develop outside the influence of these different worlds – Western, Russian, Chinese and Middle Eastern – and whether the so-called universal values can be developed differently. But for me, the most important issue is that Central Asian countries protect their sovereignty, their independence, and can oppose the growing pressure of Russia to join a new so-called Soviet Union Block. All we remember from this period which ended in 1991, is mismanagement, corruption and oppression, unfreedom of its citizens, a situation we never would desire again.
Note: The statements made by the participants reflect their personal opinions.